show_status_app

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the return format (ToolResult with PrefabApp card and plain-text fallback), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not describe error handling or side effects, but for a read-only status tool the fallback behavior is a meaningful disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear main sentence, an alternative usage note, and a structured return format section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main purpose, displayed content, alternative raw-data tool, and return format. It could optionally mention it is read-only or contrast with the sibling opencode_server_status, but overall it provides sufficient information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no documentation. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter descriptions are needed, and the description does not need to explain any input semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('opencode server status as a rich Prefab card'), and lists the exact content displayed (reachability, startup probe result, job counts). It distinguishes itself from raw data tools by explicitly naming opencode_system as an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises using opencode_system(action="status") for raw data, which clarifies when not to use this tool. It does not provide extended scenario guidance, but the alternative is clearly stated and the context implies this tool is for rich UI presentation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.